[ovs-discuss] NXAST_CONTROLLER vs NXAST_CONTROLLER2

2023-07-09 Thread Ashish Varma via discuss
Hello, >From ovs-actions man pages, the controller action is defined as: The controller action Syntax: controller controller:max_len controller(key[=value], ...) There is no ‘controller2’ action. So, when programming a flow, can we ask OVS to u

Re: [ovs-discuss] NXAST_CONTROLLER vs NXAST_CONTROLLER2

2023-07-10 Thread Ashish Varma via discuss
Thanks for the clear explanation! From: Ilya Maximets Date: Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:05 AM To: Ashish Varma , ovs-discuss@openvswitch.org Cc: i.maxim...@ovn.org Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] NXAST_CONTROLLER vs NXAST_CONTROLLER2 !! External Email On 7/10/23 02:16, Ashish Varma via discuss

[ovs-discuss] ct action with commit

2023-11-16 Thread Ashish Varma via discuss
Hello all, I saw a setup where the ct action was used like: ct(table=100, commit, zone=6000, exec( move:NXM_OF_IN_PORT[0..15]->NXM_NX_CT_LABEL[48..63])) According to the ovs-actions man page: " Without *commit*, the *ct *action accepts the following arguments: *table=**table*

[ovs-discuss] Question on Recirculation

2024-03-22 Thread Ashish Varma via discuss
Hi I have been trying to look at the concept of recirculation in OVS. Found an old description by Joe Stringer: *OVS_ACTION_ATTR_RECIRCULATE:* Open vSwitch datapath interface extension. Not exposed at the OpenFlowlayer.* Datapath interface inserts this action when it needs more in

Re: [ovs-discuss] Question on Recirculation

2024-03-25 Thread Ashish Varma via discuss
This is very helpful. Thanks! On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 1:18 AM Eelco Chaudron wrote: > > > On 22 Mar 2024, at 19:58, Ashish Varma via discuss wrote: > > > Hi > > I have been trying to look at the concept of recirculation in OVS. > > > > Foun

Re: [ovs-discuss] Flow Monitoring

2019-05-28 Thread Ashish Varma via discuss
Please see inline as [Ashish] On 5/23/19, 8:39 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:46:40PM -0400, Vasu Dasari wrote: > Thanks for digging into this. My comments inline. I am sorry that I had to > differ from your analysis. Thank you for the correction. You ar